If you have any lingering doubts about your eligibility under the London Gazette Notice as a private citizen when the PJM was conferred, they will be eliminated by the information posted on the official web site of the Malaysian High Commission. It confirms that the PJM was conferred in 2006 and if you were not in Crown Service at that time, and therefore eligible, then the London Gazette Notice of May 1968 gives you The Queen's permission to wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia.

See: http://www.kln.gov.my/perwakilan/london/news/72

Furthermore, in July 2008 a Government Minister told a PJMer that he was delighted to see the PJM being worn on an official occasion, saying "The Queen's Warrant [i.e. the London Gazette Notice] gives permission, and it had not been rescinded."

Now, where does that leave "the faceless wonders who state that we cannot wear the medal" (a quote attributed to the same Government Minister)?

PS If you wish to read the London Gazette Notice again, read our Fight4thePJM Welcome page at http://www.fight4thepjm.org.


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

....and Barry, to ensure that the Malaysian Website notice is not lost in the mist of time I will copy it here with credit to The Malaysian High Commission website

<< Previous Page



1. The Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM) is an award conferred by the Government of Malaysia to honour the distinguished services and sacrifices of the Armed Forces and security groups from several Commonwealth countries, who had served honourably in Malaysia during the 2nd Emergency and Confrontation period. The eligible recipients should have served three months or more during the period between 31 August 1957 and 12 August 1966.


2. Following the approval given by the British Government on 31 January 2006, the Government of Malaysia will proceed with the conferment of the award.






_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------

Do I detect a hardening of attitudes amongst the Malaysian authorities? I do hope so after the dreadful insults that they have received at the hands of those 'faceless wonders'.

John

Over the past three years (just about) we have been refused information under the Freedom of Information Act, 2000, because the information was exempt under Section 37(1)(b) - conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity. This means that those who have been promoting this exemption for the PJM have been entirely wrong and a Public Enquiry into their actions should be asked for.

Also The Ombudsman reported that he had obtained advice on the PJM from their lawyers and that Paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, prevents the Ombudsman from investigating the grant of honours, awards, or privileges within the gift of the Crown and that the PJM because it had been earned in our service in the armed forces it was a gift of the Crown. How insulting and so totally mistaken.

Again the above information from the Malaysian High Commission has shown just how wrong the Ombudsman, and its legal department have been and how insulting they have all been to this honourable medal awarded and conferred on British citizens by a foreign country.

It has never been said that the Queen conferred or gifted the PJM to those eligible as it has always been stated that Her Majesty the Queen approved the recommendations of the HD Committee. But this has been used by Civil Servants to try and justify the absolute nonsense they have dreamed up about the non wearing of the PJM and to try and stop the real HD recommendations being made public together with the deliberate ignoring of the Regulations and Rules, and the Royal Sign Warrant system which has been in operation for almost 200 years. As The Right Hon Don Touhig MP said 'shame on them'.

Well done McD, if the suits are reading this I wouldn't mind betting that they are running around like headless chickens trying to find the 'rule book' that doesn't exist. I'll bet these people three and a bit years ago thought that 35000 decrepit Veterans would just roll over and accept their own archaic rules and Ministerial Statement, well thats another one they got wrong DAD!


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------

mcdangle wrote:

Over the past three years (just about) we have been refused information under the Freedom of Information Act, 2000, because the information was exempt under Section 37(1)(b) - conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity. This means that those who have been promoting this exemption for the PJM have been entirely wrong and a Public Enquiry into their actions should be asked for.

Also The Ombudsman reported that he had obtained advice on the PJM from their lawyers and that Paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, prevents the Ombudsman from investigating the grant of honours, awards, or privileges within the gift of the Crown and that the PJM because it had been earned in our service in the armed forces it was a gift of the Crown. How insulting and so totally mistaken.

Again the above information from the Malaysian High Commission has shown just how wrong the Ombudsman, and its legal department have been and how insulting they have all been to this honourable medal awarded and conferred on British citizens by a foreign country.

It has never been said that the Queen conferred or gifted the PJM to those eligible as it has always been stated that Her Majesty the Queen approved the recommendations of the HD Committee. But this has been used by Civil Servants to try and justify the absolute nonsense they have dreamed up about the non wearing of the PJM and to try and stop the real HD recommendations being made public together with the deliberate ignoring of the Regulations and Rules, and the Royal Sign Warrant system which has been in operation for almost 200 years. As The Right Hon Don Touhig MP said 'shame on them'.

.....It never ceases to amuse me to hear people talking about their “honour,” when they don’t have any and it probably doesn’t exist. If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, honour is the first. Actually, as character defects they are both equally reprehensible.

Even more amusing is the widespread tendency of these arbiters of 'honour' to reflexively resort to the refuge of a blatant, oft repeated, lie in order to stifle (they hope) any criticism of their anomalous application of the system in deciding who may be entitled to receive any 'honour' and who may not....might I forecast that the American 'foreign honour' recently awarded to Sub Lt Wales will be accorded swift (nay, instantaneous!) passage through the HD Committee process and that it will not, in any way, be subject to any of the negative scrutiny that the PJM received?


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.

Ah Jock............................. I must be a reprehensible scoundrel then because I have always believed in honour and patriotism!!!

Much like my hero, Winston Churchill did before me and of course, Maggie Thatcher my other hero. I must say that I am happy that I was brought up to believe in these things so strongly by my father who must have also been a reprehensible scoundrel. Coming from a long line of them from Scotland, indeed one of my ancestors was given a superb character reference by Charles 11 Stuart in which a forbear was feted as one of William Wallace's foremost Leiutenants! Strange old world isn't it.

John

John....all I can say in answer to that is that you have accepted an insult, where none was offered......Clearly you hold yourself to a higher personal standard than do those 'arbiters of Honour' of whom I am critical...

The preoccupation with honour blooms most luxuriantly among those who suspect that they are imposters, and worry that others might notice. It is worrisome to those affecting aristocracy that aristocracy doesn’t necessarily convey intelligence, schooling, decency, courage, or even simple common sense. In fact, the 'Sir Humphreys' of this world might be inferior in all of these to a labourer or a scullery maid (or even a simple soldier?). The aristocrat’s superiority, although demonstrably enforceable, is also usually imaginary....as in 'The Emperor's New Clothes' The notion of honour provides a wall. He is the sort of man who proudly asserts that he 'don’t take 'nuffin fum nobody', but with better elocution.....



Last edited by 'Jock' Fenton on Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:24 am; edited 1 time in total
_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.

No insult taken (nor offered) Jock and I believed my answer to be a light hearted reproof intended to make you smile, but it's true none the less.

Affectionately yours

John XXX

Roger that John......'light hearted reproof' understood and accepted.....but the affectionate kisses at the end of your message were somewhat superfluous....(since I, unequivocally, do not 'swing the other way')...I'm as 'straight' as they come....


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.

Me too deary..............................................!

John

jireland wrote:

Me too deary..............................................!

John

Honour

She offered her honour,
He honoured her offer,
And all night long,

It was honour and offer. (oops, I think I may be zapped for this).

Just pull rank............................................

J

mcdangle wrote:

It was honour and offer. (oops, I think I may be zapped for this).

Just a typo? I know you intended to say "It was honour an offer" referring to what the suits should have done with the PJM offer!


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia